So specializing on solid fundamentals is the consensus key to success?

That's not what I was trying to say. Your statement, while true at it's core, is a bit of an oversimplification in my opinion. If you want to be competitive beyond the intermediate level you need to be able to chain moves together, sweeps, passing, reversals, escapes, sub attempts and combinations of all of the above.

Being capable of chaining different submission attempts together requires being proficient at the individual subs as well as the transitions between them. Therefore being really good at any individual technique is not sufficient at a high level. You must also be competent at the seams that stitch sub A, B and C together.

I was going to post something similar to JnP the other day but couldn't find a good way to say it. I don't think complexity or simplicity is the answer.

Like JnP mentioned the real difference as players advance is the movement between the moves. Sometimes they are dismissively called scrambles but I don't think that is really fair. You may have an awesome armbar, an awesome triangle, and an awesome omoplata but if you can't maintain control and smoothly transition between them all then you don't really have a dangerous combination.

One easy way to see this is drilling only transitions and watching what highly advanced guys do to get from one move to the next. At the lowest level you will see guys sort of waiting for each move to come and then applying and then stopping and waiting some more. The higher you go the more each sub is an after thought on the flow into a position. Watching videos of Marcello rolling with his black belts really shows this in my opinion.

Complex -vs- Simple is not easy to define when looking at your overall game and I think those labels, in themselves, may pigeon hole your mat vision as your game develops.

Are transitions to and from Reverse De La Riva, Deep Half Guard, and Inverted Guard "complex"? Sure...if you are looking at that specific transition/position in isolation.

Is a Scissor Sweep a "simple"? Sure...if you are looking at that specific sweep in isolation.

A particular technique, transition, sweep, guard, or submission is only as good, effective, and COMPLEX as the chain of events that lead up to its execution.

Watching two guys who have been training for 7-10 years hit a scissor sweep on each other will likely be a very complex set of dekes, set-ups, give aways, counters, and eventual sweep that will leave anyone who knows what they are looking at saying..."holy crap....that was the the best scissor sweep EVER!!!".

Whereas watching 2 guys with 6 months mat time who just learned cross lapel grip, same side arm, open guard, shrimp, load up, sweep to mount will likely result in those watching saying "HA!!! Billy got hit with the scissor sweep!!!"

Same sweep...much, much different in complexity depending on who does it.

Mat time, mat time, mat time, mat time. The more you have, the more you recognize; the more you recognize, the more you have to adapt your game or get left behind; the more you adapt your game, the longer your set-ups become to execute even the most "basic" techniques against grapplers of the same level.

When I'm grappling with my instructor now, a simple grip change or small hip or knee movement brings a list of possible outcomes up in my head which I try to immediatley counter and string in to an attack position to set him back...any delay in my recognition, god forbid he tries something I've never seen or experienced before, gets me tooled...quickly.

The actual ability to recognize what is going on and what options you have in your arsenal to react, respond, and take control of the match is what, in my opinion, defines the complexity of an individuals game. You don't have to string attacks through X-guard, inverted guard, Z-guard, lasso guard, and reverse de la riva to have a "complex" game. Nor does your ability to effectivley utilize those positions define your game as "complex".

JNP hit the proverbial nail on the head in that "complexity" is demonstrated by your ability to recognize, respond, and control as many variables that get thrown at you everytime you roll.

Simple -vs- Complex is relative....mat time, mat time, mat time, mat time and a willingness to step outside of your comfort zone in training is what, I think, leands to an individual's game being defined as "complex".

I know fundementals are where it's at, particularly in MMA where position is going to rule the day for the most part.

I find my particular roadmap to winning in competition does involve having more tools in the toolbox than the other guy. I'd like to expand on that idea, so I'll write more later and see what you folks think.

I might be speaking from my bias as a UltraHW where very dynamic games are rare. At lower weight classes you see much more active games. But do you really see that much higher diversity of techniques employed by a single competitor?

You're right I don't see it much at my weight class but it also makes it easier for me. I am also an ULTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHEAVY! At Europeans I swept through my weight class. Absolute was actually harder but I surprised my opponents because they found they were just fighting a "dancing bear." My game is very dynamic because I believe that I should be more technical than diesel (I'm an ultra that is more muscle than gut) I've generally have been trained by guys much smaller than me and I had to be very technical to keep up with them. I realize early that HULK SMASH was only going to go so far. Yes its nice but it's also better to be diesel and technical.

My game plan has always been the same (Get takedown, get position, finish) The way I do these has changed greatly over the years. I used to be the omoplata king, then a vicious leg guy, an arm collector for awhile, now I am more of a choker.

I know fundementals are where it's at, particularly in MMA where position is going to rule the day for the most part.

I find my particular roadmap to winning in competition does involve having more tools in the toolbox than the other guy. I'd like to expand on that idea, so I'll write more later and see what you folks think.

I really don't think about having more tools than the other guy simply because I don't know what tools the other guy is coming with. I have a road map and I make sure the tools I have get me there. I always believe scoring the takedown. I make sure I have the tools to do that. If the guy pulls guard then I still see that as an opportunity to score the takedown by passing the guard so I make sure I have tools good enough to do that and so on.
Now I do have my "Ninja" techniques but I make sure I have solid fundamentals to set them up.